Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Can you clarify what your response about justice had to do with anything that I said? Why did your response to my claim that the US lacked respect for justice so closely resemble the last half of a really lame Law and Order episode?
|
He's trying to explain to you that there are different definitions of "justice" -- each equally valid and valuable to consider.
Some consider "justice" to be following the rules (which seems to be the way you are leaning when you use phrases like "rule of law"). that would mean that OBL should have been captured, tried, and etc. according to pre-defined parameters. The flip-side of that, is that people can "get off" via technical violations or over-sight. That is, sometimes "justice" of that flavor results in no punishment for the offender. More importantly to someone of your political/philpsophical leanings, is that procedural justice does not allow for corrections of social injustice. It doesn't have space for something like an unjust law (competing with your position on unfair drug laws).
You've got a couple mutually exclusive theoretical foundations operating in your assessment. That's one problem.
Law and Order episodes are about the procedural justice side of our legal structures. That's why his response to your procedural justice-ish stance looked like an episode.
"Justice" as an outcome tends to focus on whether the end result is considered appropriate, regardless of the procedure utilized to obtain it. In this specific case, many people consider OBL's actions worthy of death. A trial would only be useful in so far as it becomes a means to that end. To most, it's unnecessary and at worst could be a liability (because regardless of whether they are fair (or "just" in common parlance) our country *does* focus on procedural justice.
This kind of justice doesn't allow the cop to let you go without a ticket simply because you sped up over the speed limit to get your wife to the hospital or to avoid the car accident to your left. It doesn't allow people to refuse to convict the thief who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving child.
That's the problem with using "justice" willynilly